All politics isn't local

Friday

Oct 29, 2010 at 2:00 AM

Massachusetts' Tip O'Neill, long-serving congressman and Democratic Speaker of the House who clashed with both the Carter and Reagan administrations, said, "All politics is local." There was much to admire about Tip, but that comment made me cringe the first time I heard it. I've often wondered if O'Neill ever regretted saying it.

TOM GELSTHORPE

Massachusetts' Tip O'Neill, long-serving congressman and Democratic Speaker of the House who clashed with both the Carter and Reagan administrations, said, "All politics is local." There was much to admire about Tip, but that comment made me cringe the first time I heard it. I've often wondered if O'Neill ever regretted saying it.

O'Neill had a mission for liberal priorities tempered by skill in "the art of the possible," Bismarck's assessment of the essence of politics. I felt Tip's "local" comment oozes contempt for ordinary citizens. It's like saying, "All voters are hicks," "All interests are selfish," or "All activists are shortsighted." I feel none of those things are true. Americans are politically sophisticated and capable of thinking outside the proverbial box.

The American experiment in self-government has always been about more than scoring federal funds for local projects. It's been about fundamentally improving the way people think about and exercise political power, not only locally but worldwide. Some of the world's worst tyrants operate charades of constitutional government. Either it fools some of the people some of the time or it makes the tyrants feel better.

Massachusetts has a venerable heritage of thinking ahead and forgoing shortsighted concerns for the greater good of the country and humanity. Bay State voters can again contribute to choices about the direction the country will take over the next several years.

An election two years after a presidential election is often interpreted as a referendum on the president's first half term. The party out of power usually gains. This year bodes normal in that respect and the pattern seems healthy. Nearly every president enters office brimming with expectations, enjoys legislative victories and a press honeymoon, then overreaches. Then the voters say, "Hold your horses. We want change but not that much change." A chastened administration can be a better one.

In 2008 voters elected a Democratic Senate, House and White House. Compared to Republicans, Democrats favor more taxing, more spending, more government generally. Typical of liberal victories, spending rose. Activist government became more assertive. Voters soon began thinking maybe debt-funded, busybody government isn't so hot; they're ready to scale back in the direction of Republican calls for limited government. Can Republicans deliver?

Virtually all politicians claim to favor small business, but if there's a local aspect that fuels perennial denunciations of Washington from many corners, it's small businesses' dislike of paperwork. I have yet to meet a farmer, fisherman, shopkeeper or factory operator who says, "Oh boy! Just what I always wanted — more forms to fill out." When you set the grandiose pronouncements aside, what does more government amount to? More forms, more required filings, more energies diverted from what normal people consider productive.

"Hillarycare" almost sank the first Clinton administration and "Obamacare" has turned millions of voters against this one. There is a consensus that medical costs are disturbingly high, but ordinary voters didn't think a 1,300-page law would lower costs in 1994 and they don't think a 3,700-page law will lower them now. It looks more like a jobs program for lawyers.

Even faithful readers scanning this column are a self-selected group with an above-average tolerance for verbiage. People who actually make things, stock shelves and treat illnesses prefer deeds to words. They'd rather dispense with blather, roll up their sleeves and get to work.

Ironically, each party's base delivers predictable voting blocs but independent voters who belong to no party are apt to be the decisive factor in this election. That reveals a contradiction activists seldom like to admit: Change-the-world schemes involve a cohesive group telling other people what to do, but alas, freedom-loving people don't like being told what to do.

The likely winners will carry a D or R after their names but swing votes by independents will be what makes it happen. That bothers a lot of pundits, but it doesn't bother me. Independence of mind is among the most venerable of American traditions. My biggest question is, will a swing of the pendulum merely deliver a new set of masters, or bring net gains for liberty?

Tom Gelsthorpe, a sailor and former farmer, lives in Cataumet. Call him at 508-564-4919 or e-mail him at

gels_adelphia1@comcast.net

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.